In recent years there has been a definite shift towards ‘Guided Discovery’ as the preferred coaching methodology because it has its merits just like any other methodology, for example, a ‘Constraints Lead Approach. The shift has been made on the basis that players retain more information when they find a solution to a problem or ‘discover’ how to achieve a task, such as how to get past an opponent in a 1v1 contest. For example a player might discover that if he or she feints to pass to a team mate and their opponent moves to anticipate the pass, it is possible to drag the ball away from the defender and go forwards or sideways to keep the ball and go past the opponent . ‘Guided Discovery’ is not a new teaching methodology but it is often considered to be better than what a lot of coaches have done in the past and will continue to do in the future and that is ‘tell’ players what to do or ‘show’ players what to do to achieve an outcome [1].
I think there is a time and place for all methodologies and it will depend on a number of considerations which may include, the skill of the coach, the players knowledge base and ability, the weather conditions, if the players are practising in small groups or as one group, the age of the players and the environment, the level of motivation and the coach’s relationship with the players. In my opinion it would be unwise to say that one method or a preferred method should be used across the board in any coaching situation because the conditions can be so different.
Recently I had a discussion on ‘Twitter’ with a University lecturer in England, who told me that people only truly remember what they discover for themselves and over time they will forget what they are told. He explained that there is not an emotional link between being told what to do in a learning situation but there is an emotional link if a person discovers the solution to a problem and it is the emotional link that aids retention of the experience and learning. Not being an expert in this area I thought about it and while it might be true, I concluded it did not apply to me. I could remember many things that I was told as a young player and young person but I could not remember anything I discovered for myself. That I could not remember anything I had discovered myself might suggest a weakness on my part but if it is true that people forget things they are told, how could I remember things more than 50 years later? I was sceptical I have to admit, because after more than 65 years on the planet I have discovered I was not born yesterday.
To put the theory to the test I asked the national team coaches at our next camp if anyone could remember something they were told as a young player that they did throughout their playing career and could they remember something they had discovered for themselves. Every coach could remember something they had been told to do as a young player and why it would be effective and worth doing, but only one of the four coaches could remember something he had discovered him self. This was the complete opposite to what my learned friend on ‘Twitter’ said would happen. The fact that only one person could remember something he had discovered for himself may have indicated he was the only smart one round the table but that had nothing to do with the first question, could you remember something you had been told? Ask yourself the same question and make up your own mind about whether telling somebody something is worthwhile or not.
On the topic of ‘telling’ or giving instructions about what to do I read an interesting paper last year about John Wooden who was voted the most successful basketball coach of the century in the USA. That is a big call about any coach in any country I have to admit. Researchers studied his coaching methods from recordings made 25 years ago and calculated that approximately 75% of his communications with the players were instructional, e.g. Do this or do that, look for this or look at that, statements to refine or mould movements patterns or cues to recognise to improve timing of movement; very few questions to the players for their thoughts about the situation from the coach. But that was in the ‘old days’ so if we do the same things today, we will not have made progress, right, or could that be wrong? Should we change a successful teaching methodology, just for the sake of it, like fashion in clothes, or because results have shown a different approach has been more productive or more efficient?
I am keen to learn and improve my understanding about anything that might improve the learning environment and coaching techniques so I follow a number of experts on ‘Twitter’, I ask questions and follow up on referenced articles when possible. The interesting thing for me is that there are many experts who discuss the coaching methodologies, the best learning environment to create and the potential outcomes, which is all very stimulating but few provide evidence to show the theories actually work in football. For example, does research in developing skill in baseball automatically transfer to football? Does research in one team sport transfer to another simply because it is a team sport even though one might be dominated by hand skills rather than foot skills? I have my doubts, which brings me to my next point.
At the Pacific Coaching Conference in Vancouver last month I was made aware of research by Professor John Hattie from Melbourne University, who spent 15 years studying the most successful strategies in teaching students to read. He analysed over 138 different teaching methodologies involving more than 50 million students and ranked the methodologies according to the impact they had on students. My comments are not meant to represent the outcomes of his extensive research but students learnt more from feedback and instructions than from learning by discovery. I don’t know if methodologies to teach people to read are transferable to football but if they are, the results have implications for coaches.
Another modern theory, which is the ultimate example of ‘Learning by Discovery is ‘Let the Game be the Teacher’. That is exactly what used to happen years ago before coaching became commonplace, but in those days players of all ages played with and against each other in unstructured environments. Are we to assume that players will learn everything they need to know from just playing the game? From my own experience I would have to say no, it would not happen. Good players will always emerge by just playing football, without formal coaching; there is ample evidence of that from years gone by. The downside is that players learn bad habits as well as good ones. To assume that coaching did not take place in those unstructured environments of yesteryear would be wrong. Coaching took place, not as we know it today, but it was done by the older lads, who would ‘tell’ and ‘show’ the younger players what to do to improve technique. As a youngster playing with older experienced players in competitive football I have strong memories of being ‘talked’ through the game when defending and given help and encouragement to do things when attacking; hold it, turn, switch the play, take him on, it was all part of the playing and learning process. If that is what advocates of ‘Let the Game be the Teacher’ have in mind I can see their point, but having said that the methodology still had its shortcomings. Explanations about why something was good or bad were not always forthcoming, verbal abuse often followed mistakes and fear of failure was always in the background. Maybe it was not the best environment for learning but that was the situation back then. Advocates of this approach today would say the ‘coach’ becomes a facilitator for learning to take place, which is easy to say and much harder to put in to practice. At the end of the day, coaches need to be effective not fashionable and keep an open mind.
Coach education over the years has made a massive contribution to the quality of what happens today at all levels of the game, I support it and it is to be encouraged. I think coaches should be aware of all methodologies and be prepared and able to use the most appropriate one to suit the circumstances in the moment, because I believe coaching is more of an art than a science.
Ron Smith
[1] The example I gave is why I recommend 1v1 practice should be done in 2v2 or 2v1 situations because the majority of dribbles in a game happen when there is a pass option for the player in possession.